Главная > Реферат >Остальные работы

Сохрани ссылку на реферат в одной из сетей:

Abortion Essay, Research Paper

Abortion

In order to
discuss an important issue such as abortion, we must first understand
what it means. Abortion is the expulsion of a human fetus within the
first twelve weeks of pregnancy, before it is viable. In other words,
it is when a women has tissue removed from her uterus. Abortion is a
very fragile issue to discuss because of the many conflicts involved
with pro-abortion and anti-abortion. It has many negative and
positive response from many people including philosophers. Thus, we
will be discussing the arguments of utilitarian reasoning, of the
article written by Judith Jarvis Thompson who is pro-abortion and by
Sidney Callahan who is a prolife but also discusses prochoice. We
will be analyzing each argument to understand their point of view on
this controversial issue. Furthermore, I will indicate my own
solution and voice my own opinion on abortion and also I will discuss
what I do agree with and what I do disagree.

First ,
according to utilitarianism, we ought to decide which action or
practice is best by considering the likely or actual consequences of
each alternative. Hence for the utilitarian their arguments for
abortion often cite the bad consequences that may result from a
continued pregnancy such as loss of job, the suffering of the future
child, the burden of caring for the child under particular
circumstances, and so on. Some of their arguments against abortion
also cite the loss of happiness (and that is the central theme in
utilitarianism: happiness) and the future contribution of the being
that is aborted. Act utilitarians believe that the persons making the
abortion decision must consider the consequences of the alternative
actions. In other words deciding to have the abortion or not. The
kinds of consequences to consider are health risks and benefits,
positive or negative mental or psychological consequences, and
financial and social aspects of the alternative choices. Notice that
the fetus is not an issue to the utilitarian if it is recognize as a
person or not.It is the effects on the mother, child, and others that
matter in the utilitarian thinking and not the moral status of the
fetus or the ontological status at that stage of development.
Moreover, notice that the utilitarian say that abortion sometimes
would be permissible and sometimes not because it would depend on the
consequences.

In the article A
Defense of Abortion, Thompson agrees that the prospect for drawing a
line in the development of the fetus looks dim. She s also inclined
to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before
birth. Because by the 10th week, for example, it already has a face,
arms and legs, fingers and toes, it has internal organs, and brain
activity is detectable. Thompson grants that the fetus is a person.
Thus the argument against abortion is that every person has a right
to life. However, she uses the example of the violinist to shed
another light about the issue of right to life. Thompson says to
imagine that one morning to wake up and find ourselves attached
through various tubings to a famous violinist. We have been kidnapped
during the night because we are the only one to have the right blood
type to help the violinist who has a fatal kidney disease. So they
have plugged us into him so that he can live. To unplug ourselves
would mean to kill the violinist. Thus, they say it will only be for
nine months but what if it was for nine years or the rest of our
life. Thompson reminds us that all persons have a right to live, and
violinists are persons. She says that we have the right to decide
what to our body, but a person s right to life outweighs our right to
decide what happens in and to our body. She also brings the issue of
rape; if a woman got pregnant due to rape would those who oppose
abortion make an exception? She is sure they would change their minds
about that. Beside rape, she also says that what if the pregnancy
would shorten the mother s life would aborting be permissible? She
uses the example of a woman who has become pregnant, and now learns
that she has a heart problem which might result into death if she
carries the baby to term.That is when she explains the extreme
position which is abortion is impermisible even to the mother s life.
So, who is more important to live? They are both people and do have
the right to live, so how to choose between them? To perform the
abortion would be directly killing the child, whereas to do nothing
would not be killing the mother but letting her die.Thompson also
brings up the case of self-defense. If a person is being harmed in
any way such as the pregnant woman with the heart conditon then
abortion would be permissible because it is self-defense to save her
life. Same for the example of the violinist; we are being harmed and
our life is in danger if we stay plugged in to him. Thus,
self-defense is permissible to save our life and to let the other
die.

She also brings
another argument of self-defense with an example to make it clearer
to us readers. Suppose a mother finds herself in a very tiny house
with a rapidly growing child. The mother will be crushed to death but
the child won t be crushed to death and in the end he will simply
burst and walk out a free man. She argues that however the innocent
the child may be, the mother does not have to wait passively while it
crushes her to death. Thompson concludes for the self-defense is that
a woman can defend her life against the threat to it posed by an
unborn child, even if it involves death.

She brings
another view to defend abortion which is an example of Henry Fonda s
cool hands. She is asking us that for a persons right to life would
include having the right to be given at least the bare minimum one
needs for a continuum of life. The question she is asking is that
what if the person has no right to even be given the bare minimum?
She uses the example of a person who s sick, ready to die. The only
thing that will save him is the touch of Henry Fonda s cool hand on
the fevered brow. However, the person has no right to be given the
touch of Henry Fonda s cool hands on the fevered brow. It would be
nice if Mr. Fonda could but the person has no right at all against
anybody that he should do this to him. In addition if we return to
the other example of the violinist, who needs our kidneys to live,
has no right against us that we should give him continued use of our
kidneys. She argues that nobody has any right to use our kidneys
unless we give him the right to do so. Also nobody has the right
against us that we should give him this right because if we do let
the violionist use our kidneys it is shown as a kind act. Plus , to
explain more on this argument is another example presented. Suppose a
boy and his little brother are jointly given a box of chocolate for
Christmas. If the older boy takes the box and refuses to give any of
them, then he is unjust to him, because the brother has been given a
right to half. This shows that the little boy was treated unfairly
because he has at least the ownership of half of

them. Thus,
Thompson argues that the right to life consists not in the right not
to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly. So,
if a pregnant woman does not kill an unborn child unjustly, that
person does not violate her right to life.

Another argument
is the use of the terms consent and voluntariness. For consent ,
Thompson says that if the pregnant woman has not given consent to the
unborn child to use her body for shelter and food then she has the
right to abort it such as a pregnancy due to rape. If the woman does
not want to have a child then she has the right to chose for it being
killed because it is not unjust against herself and of the child. For
a woman voluntarily has intercourse, and took all the precautions to
prevent being pregnant, although she is conscious that she may get
pregnant, does in fact get pregnant than it is not her fault. Because
it is not her fault, and she doesn t want the child then she has the
right to have an abortion. Thus, because a pregnant women did not
consent or did not voluntarily want this to happen to her then
abortion is viewed not to be unjust especially if it were rape.

By using many of
her examples she argues about the term for what is right. Take the
case of Henry Fonda. Remember that Thompson said that the person had
no right to the touch of his cool hands on his fevered brow, even
though it might save the person s life. Even if Henry Fonda was his
neighbor, and not in the West Coast, he still has no right to be
given that to save his life. Also with her other examples, she brings
up the same argument which is that even though we ought to let the
violinist use our kidneys for only the one hour he needs, we should
not conclude that he has the right to do so. If we refused we would
be like the boy who owns all the chocolate and will give none away,
self-centered, callous and indecent but not unjust. Same for a woman
who is raped then she should have an abortion if she wishes but she
would not be unjust.

Thompson brings
the point of a Good Samaritan to argue her point for abortion. She
says that a Good Samaritan would rush out to give assistance, even if
it means putting his life at risk. She uses the example of Kitty
Genovese who was murdered while thirty-eight people did nothing at
all to help her. She say that there wasn t a Good Samaritan to her
assistance not even a Minimal Decent Samaritan to at least call for
help. Of course no one is legally forced to do something like this.
However, she argues that many women are forced not only to be Minimal
Decent Samaritan but also a Good Samaritan to the unborn child inside
her. She says that women with unwanted pregnancy should not be forced
by law to keep this child and be a Good Samaritan to it. She argues
that there is gross injustice in the state of law. The people who did
not act to help Kitty Genovese were not charged by law, however if a
woman doesn t want the unborn child can be punished by law if she
decides to have an abortion. She argues that Minimal Decent Samaritan
laws are one thing, Good Samaritan laws are another and also highly
improper. Thompson says that what we should ask ourselves is not
whether a person is compelled by law to be a good Samaritan,but
whether they can be a Good Samaritan voluntarily.

Thompson argues
that even though the fetus is recognize as a person, the pregnant
woman still has a right to have an abortion. She argues if the
parents did not try to prevent the pregnancy, do not obtain an
abortion, but rather take it home with them then they have assumed
responsibility for it. The parents have given it rights and they
cannot stop given it support because they find it difficult to go on
providing it. However if the couple did try to prevent the pregnancy,
then they should not take the responsibilities to provide for it and
take care of it.

While Thompson
argues that abortion is not impermissible, she does not argue that it
is always permissible. For instance, a sick and frightened
fourteen-year-old schoolgirl is pregnantdue to rape. She may choose
abortion and that any law that rules this out is an insane law.
However, she doesn t agree and says it would be indecent if a woman
requested an abortion, and indecent for the doctor to perform it, if
she is seven months pregnant because she wants to avoid a nuisance of
postponing a trip abroad. Thus she concludes that a very early
abortion is not killing a person but a thing.

The next article
is Abortion and the Sexual Agenda: A Case for Profile Feminism by
Sidney Callahan. Callahan gives the arguments for pro-choice and,
like herself, prolife. She says that pro-choice feminist are claiming
that abortion rights are prerequisites for women s full development
and social equality. However, prolife feminists, like herself, argue
that women can never achieve the fulfillment of feminist goals in a
society permissive toward abortion. Feminist theorists of the
prochoice position want to put the demand for unrestricted abortion
rights as a moral imperative and insist upon women s right to
complete reproduction freedom. Callahan summarizes the prochoice
views in terms of four central moral claims.

The first one is
the moral right to control one s own body . She says that prochoice
feminist argues that a woman choosing an abortion should be seen and
recognized in our common law tradition. These feminists say if a
women does not want to go through with the demands of a pregnancy and
birth, she should not be forced to against her will. For it is her
body and she has the right to terminate the pregnancy if she wants
to. They argue that nobody is forced to donate an organ or other
invasive physical procedures no matter how good the cause is.Hence,
prochoice argues that no woman should be forced to a cumpulsory
pregnancy . They also refer to the fetus as a biological parasite
taking resources from the woman s body. They argue that during
pregnancy, a woman s whole life and energies will be actively
involved in the nine-month process. In addition, the mother must
undertake a twenty-year responsibility for raising the child. They
say that since it s her body, it s her risk, her burden, then she
alone should be free to decide on pregnancy or abortion.

The second moral
claim is the moral necessity of autonomy and choice in personal
responsibility . Prochoice feminists claim that to be a full adult
morally, a woman must be able to make responsible life commitments.
To plan, choose, and exercise personal responsibility, one must have
control of reproduction. They say that a woman must be able to make a
yes or no decision about a specific pregnancy, according to her
situation,resources, prior commitments and life plan. For them,
contraceptive provides a measure of personal control. However if by
any chance the contraceptives fail and a pregnancy has resulted then
thats why the free access to abortion can provide the necessary
garantee. Because, they argue, without reproduction freedom, women s
personal moral agency and human consciousness are subjected to
biology and chance.

The third moral
claim is the moral claim for the contingent value of fetal life .
Prochoice feminists claim that the value of fetal life depend upon
the woman s free consent and subjective acceptance. The fetus must be
invested with maternal valuing in order to become human. Thus , they
argue, if the fetal interests or fetal rights can never outweigh the
woman s prior interest and right. If a women does not consent to
invest her pregnancy with meaning or value then she has the right to
terminate her pregnancy. They say that prior to her free choice and
conscious investment, a woman cannot be described as a mother nor can
the child be said to exist. Also they say that a woman is allowed to
terminate her pregnancy if there is a genetic problem or some other
problems that might emerge before birth. Thus, they say that late
abortion should be granted without legal restriction.

Finally the
forth moral claim is the moral right of woem to full social equality
. They argue that women have a moral right to full equality. They say
that if a women cannot control when and how she will be pregnant or
rear children, she is disadvantaged especially in a male-dominant
society. They argue that women must enjoy the basic right of a person
to the free exercise of heterosexual intercourse and full sexual
expression, without worrying about getting pregnant. Hence, abortion
is necessary for promiscuous women.

Callahan
provides four moral claims from the prolife feminists view. The first
one is from thr moral right to control one s own body to a more
inclusive ideal of justice . Prolife feminist agree that the moral
right to control one s own body does apply to organ transplants,
mastectomies, contraception, and sterilization; but they disagree
,with the prochoice, that it is not a conceptualization adequate for
abortion. Prolife feminist recognize the fetus as a human development
and that it is a continuum. They argue that it is wrong to harm other
bodies no matter if they are immature, dependent, different looking,
or powerless. Even the the handicapped, the retarded and new borns
are legally protected from harm. They argue that just like women who
were treated inferior now the fetus is seen as merely a biological
life instead of a person. They also argue that the fetus is an
immature, dependent form of human life which only needs time and
protection to develop. Thus, they say that immaturity and dependency
are not crime, so why kill them.

The second claim
is from the necessity of autonomy and choice in personal
responsibility to an expanded sense of responsibility . They argue
that women should have a wider acceptance of the unexpected events
that life presents. They argue that a woman, involuntarily pregnant,
has a moral obligation to the existing fetus wheter she consents to
it or not. The prolife feminist argue that these women should accept
the burdens; the fetus has rights arising from its extreme need and
the interdependency and unity of humankind. They say that to follow
the prochoice feminist idealogy of insistent individualistic autonomy
and control is to betray a fundamental basis of the moral life.

The third claim
is from the moral claim of the contingent value of the fetal life to
the moral claim for the intrinsic value of human life . They argue
that human life from the beginning to the end of the development has
intrinsic value. They say that it s either we are going to value
human life and humanity as a good thing or take some variant of the
nihilist position that assumes human life is just one more random
occurrence in the universe such that each human life must be
justified to prove itself worthy to continue. Thus, they argue that
biological life should never be dicounted. Collective human familiy
is the basis for human solidarity, equality, and natural human
rights.

Finally the
fourth claim is the moral right of women to full social equality from
a profile feminist perspective . Profile and prochoice feminist both
agree on the moral right of women to the full social equality so far
denied them. However, the disagreement between concerns the definiton
of the desired goal and the best means to get there. They argue that
permissive abortion laws do not bring women reproductive freedom,
social equality, sexual fulfillment, or full personal development.
They argue that women will never climb to equality and social
empowerment over mounds of dead fetuses . The prolife feminist say
that as long women bear children then they stand to gain from tha
attitudes in our society and the institutions that will also protect
the fetus in the womb s baby. In other words eliminating the cultural
assumptions that support permissive abortion. They also argue that if
woman do have a choice to have an abortion or not then why should the
men have to support it and share the responsibility if they cannot be
in the decision of the childs welfare?

She concludes
that while legal abortion are freely available, a clear cultural
message is given which is that conception and pregnancy are no longer
serious matters. She says that with abortion as an acceptable
alternative, women will not be as responsible for the use of
contraception. Thus, they will take risks. She finally says that it
becomes more and more difficult not to use abortion to solve problem
pregnancies. An abortion, she says, becomes no longer a choice but a
necessity.

Now after all
the arguments discussed throughout this paper, I have my on views on
abortion. Specifically, there are some arguments that do not persuade
especially the arguments for abortion. For instance, the argument
proposed by the utilitarian for abortion is that it will cost too
much and also the loss of job. Well, first women do not lose their
jobs because of maternity leave. However, there will be a period
during the childs raising where the woman has to decide to continue
to work or to stay at home. That s free choice. In our society we see
a lot of women who do work and raise their children and they have
balanced both very well. While they do say arguments for abortion,
there are also arguments against abortion such as the loss of
happiness and the future contribution of the being that is aborted. I
agree with this view because the woman would not feel happy after the
procedure. Most women have psychological problems such as guilt and
remorse for killing an innocent unborn child.

The article by
Thompson did not persuade me, especially her arguments which seemed
all absurd. For instance, the outrageous example with the violinist
who is a person and as a person he has the right to live. I agree
that all persons do have the right to live, however the child did not
ask to be put on earth. The violinist could have gone through some
treatment and be cured and be saved, but who will save a healthy,
innocent and defenseless unborn child? Plus, to prove her point of
argument she always brings up the topic of being raped and
consequently being pregnant. Research has been done and it shows that
it is less than one percent of chance to get pregnant due to rape.
Thus, what about the rest, do they deserve to be killed because the
woman is not ready to have a child? Then when is she ready? She also
says that if the woman has health risks such as a heart problem then
abortion is permissible. I do not agree, because with the advanced
technology and high skilled doctors treatment and closely being
monitored would prevent any complications. Also it is proven that
some women do experience health problems such as internal bleeding,
which can result into death. So there are also risks to not be
prevented from dying due to abortion. Hence, two lives would be
terminated. Another argument that she brings up is the issue of
self-defense. I asked myself self -defense against what? Against an
innocent child,who s harmless. Again if the mother is in danger,
doctors are highly skilled and would prevent the risk of death. Plus,
like I mentioned earlier, women have also risk if they undergo with
the procedure of abortion.

Thompson also
argues that we are not required to even give the bare minimum to save
a life if we do not want to. That is absurd, because it is her fault
that she is pregnant. Thus, she should take the responsibility and
give this unborn child all the necessity needs it requires. I f she
does not want the child, the least she could do is to give it up for
adoption where a family would give the maximum necessity that it
requires to live a happy life. When Thompson says that if a woman
took all the precaution to not get pregnant and she did then
abortionis permissibel. Exactly how many women in this society have
had expected pregnancies? Most women do want children but there are
others that have had accidental pregnancies and still keeps them.
Because all unborn childs do have the right to life and to deny it
from life is immoral.

Thompson argues
about the term right with the example of the kidney being used for an
hour. She says that the violinist does not even have the right to
have that privilege. That is ridiculous, for the unborn child to be
denied of life because the woman does not want it, well, deal with
it. Life was given by God and the woman should not be the sole judge
to decide to terminate the pregnancy. Another amusing argument is
when she says that it is gross injustice that a woman has to be a
Good Samaritan and not to abort it. Well let me ask you this: How
about the gross injustice to the unborn child to be denied of life?
Should the unborn child be punished because of a self-centered woman
that doesn t understant the value of life? Hence, the arguments she
tries to defend abortion are nonsense because there is no excuse for
anyone to be denied of life, especially iif its an innocent,
dependent and harmless unborn child.

The article by
Sidney Callahan did persuade me to agree with the prolife feminist
but not with the prochoice feminists. The prochoice feministsargues
that if the woman does not want to be pregnant then she has the right
to have an abotion. She should not be forced against her will to keep
it because it s her body and it s her decision. All I have to say to
this is it might be her body, however, the father should have a say
in the decision because it is half his too. They also refer to the
unborn child as a biological pararisite . That term is indecent and
wrong to even refer your own child as a parasite. They argue it s
like a parasite that takes resources from the woman s body. Well, how
do we expect the child to develop, and be a healthy baby if not to
provide him with the basic needs. Also, they argue that the mother
must invest all her energies into the nine-month process and the next
twenty years of responsibility. We were designed to reproduce and our
responsibility is to provide the child with the basic needs. They
refer to having a child is like an unwanted task when it should be
the most wonderful experience any parent could wish to have and be
blessed with.

They also argue
that if the pregnancy does not in their present situation and
priorities than abortion is permissible. Thus they should have
control over reproduction. So, contraceptives are available to
prevent that. However, they say, that if by chance it fails then
abortion can provide the necessity garantee. Then if the woman took
all the precautions necessary and still became pregnant then she
should take full responsibility. These women, who indulge to have
intercourse, know that they might risk of getting pregnant. Hence, if
a women is mature enough to have sex then she should be mature to
accept the responsibility of havig the baby.

Prochoice
feminists also argue about the fact that if the woman is not
interested in investing maternal value then she should be able to
terminate her pregnancy. they say that the fetal interest can not
outweigh the woman s prior interest and right. When a woman is
pregnant it is her moral duty to accept the unplanned event and make
it her first priority. There is no excuse to have an abortion because
it doesn t fit in her present situation.

Finally the last
point they argue is that the woman should be able to have sex and be
able to enjoy it(i.e. happiness) without worrying about getting
pregnant. That is why abortion is important to have access to if ever
it happens. Then if the women do not want to get pregnant there are a
lot of contraceptives that are ninety-nine percent effective such as
the oral contraceptive. Abortion should not be the solution.

Then Callahan
argues her view for prolife feminists which I agreed with. She says
that prolife feminists so recognize the fetus as a human development
and that it is a continuum. I agree that at the moment of conception,
which is the first two weeks, is considered as a human development
and not some biological parasite. I also agree when she says that it
is wrong to harm other bodies no matter if they are immature,
dependent, different looking or powerless. Because immaturity and
dependency are not crimes, then why kill them.

I also agree
with the fact that women should have a wider acceptance of unexpected
events. If they can accept, for example, a death in the family or
losing their jobs, which are both unexpected events and can be dealt
with, then they can deal with the pregnancy. Because women have a
moral obligation to the unborn child and to follow th ideology of the
prochoice is to betray a fundamental basis of the moral life. Plus,
Callahan adds to her argument against abortion that the humanlife
from the beginnig to the end of the development has intinsic value. I
agree with her point because life does have value and should be the
number one priority to the woman to provide the maternal values and
needs so that the unborn child could have his right to live.

Finally, when
Callahan says that permissive abortion would not bring women
reproductive freedom, social equality, sexual fulfillment, or full
personal development, it is true because they are proving to society
that they cannot do both such as having a career and a family. I also
agree with the prolife feminist when they say that men cannot have a
say if the women decides to have the abortion, but they have to share
the responsibility if the women decides to keep it. Hence, Callahan
said something that really caught my attention and thought that it
was true. She says that abortion becomes no longer a choice but a
necessity. It is true, because women view abortion as a solution for
unwanted pregnacies. Thus, they deviate from their moral obligation
to survive in a male-dominant society.

In conclusion ,
abortion will always be a controversial issue because of it s complex
and delicate views. For instance, the right to life versus the free
choice of women. It will probably be lleft unsolved because of the
many arguments for and against abortion which all have strong
positions. However, I believe that abortion should not be permissible
because of its grotesque way of killing an unborn child. Hence,
everyone has their own feelings and own opinions about this.
Therefore, we can only conclude that women do make the right choice
and value the life that has been given to them.

Похожие работы:

AbortionEssay, ResearchPaperAbortion A twenty-three year old mother ... and picket practicing offices in orderto get their message across. This ... ’s oppression is also basic to the moral order.”(Barnet 388) The baby ...

A Modest Proposal Essay, ResearchPaper A Modest Proposal For Preventing ... People in Ireland From Being Aburdento Their Parents or Country, ... will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice ... well intended. But in orderto justify my friend, he ...